(clip) inside look at 16mm transfer

T

The Mason Jar

Member
Greetings brilliant filmmakers,

I recently "sat-in" during a transfer session, my first time, and it was done over the internet (watch a short clip here of the process).

Having never sat-in before, and having not gone to film school, I feel like I am at a disadvantage when doing one of these sessions - I don't know the equipment they're using and the features at their fingertips to improve the look of my film.

Usually I just send in my film, they make all the coloring decisions, and it works out great! I wanted to tryout the online "sit-in" to become more a part of the decision making process, but I felt like a fish out of water!

I will probably leave well enough alone, but in the future, I'm still interested in knowing what else I could instruct the colorist to do to make my work shine, and I'm also interested to know the proper lingo, the terminology they understand, so we're on the same page, and I'm not feeling like I'm playing charades in trying to describe what's in my mind!

What would you have told the colorist to do to some of the shots in the clip above?

Thanks a bunch!
jones
 
You're first online can be stressful as the meter is running several times the cost of an offline. You must prepare.

First, know the look you're hoping to achieve ie: Green / Blue (Cyan) bleach bypass look; High Saturated - Golden Warm Look; Sepia with a blue wash; Etc. Get photo references. Even better, shoot a still on set (if it's not too late) and use Kodak look up tables to emulate the stock and then photoshop the look you're trying to achieve. That can be used as a reference point.

Often times when I'm in a CC session, I'll bring my computer with frame grabs or photo references to start as a reference point. This saves a great deal of time. Keep in mind though, as a colorist can completely change the look there are limitations. For instance if your neg is too underexposed (thin neg as it's called), you may not be able to pull a great amount of detail from the shadows without introducing too much noise. Conversely, if it's too bright (dense neg) you may not be able to get detail from parts of the highilghts. Other limitations may be if you shot daylight film under tungsten light (to create a real orange / warm look) but now you want to change it to a blue look in xfer - it can be down, but will have a weak blue signal and may result in excessive noise.

If it's a feature you're timing. I'd have a meeting with the colorist at least a week ahead of time so he can discuss the parameters of your negative and his machine.

Once in session, the colorist will create the look of each scene. Initially this seems slow going but once the looks are established and the settings / frame grabs saved, he can apply them to subsequent scenes quite quickly. Adjustments will be made to match shot to shot within a scene. Where time gets eaten up is with problematic shots (under/overexposed or bad lighting continuity) or not knowing the look you want and trying to figure it all out there and then. Power windows and tracking through a shot (rides) also takes time.

Which brings us to the time = money equation. Let the post house and colorist know how much time you've budgeted for and that way the colorist will set the appropriate pace and quality. Budget at least an hour of overage. By knowing your time limitations you can figure out your priorities (ie: do I waste 15 minutes trying to tweak an insert of a doorknob or use that time to get my star's closeup looking right).

Last much depends on the project you're doing. Some music videos I've shot, we go straight to a supervised transfer and not bother with a one light. After the offline, only minor corrections are necessary. That way no explaining is needed for the client during the offline postings. It looks pretty good off the bat. For commercial work, we get the 1st transfer ball parked but not exact so as to save some flexibility for the post. Quite often it's finished in Flame not in Xfer. We may go back and re xfer certain selects if the looks is to be changed radically from the 1st xfer. For narrative work, especially indies, we do best light (sent in with photo refs or detailed insructions) to SD offline and then after the offlline, retransfer the selects to a D2, HD Cam SR or 2k or above Data and then do a finishing session in a variety of scenarios all depending on budget and workflow (Avid DS, Flame, DaVinci, etc)

A few basic terms you should know to help supervise your colorist:

Chroma
Luminence
Red, Green and Blue
Yellow, Magenta and Cyan
Black Level
White Level
Contrast
Saturation
De-saturation
Noise
Grain
Power Windows
Re-frame
Crush Blacks
Open up Highlights

Hope this helps,

Good luck.

Tim Naylor - DP

PS. If it's any consolation, they didn't teach us this in film school.
 
Last edited:
I am interested in knowing how you knew your monitor was properly calibrated versus the monitor in the room, as well as proper YUV to RGB color space conversion and proper 0 RGB - 255 RGB and 16 RGB to 235 RGB conversions. How close was the whole process to what you saw onlne versus the final look of transfer?

Michael
 
There are discrepancies. I do my frame grab work at home (not on laptop) on a Lacie 24 calibrated with a Spyder or on a BTH 1700 calibrated to bars. It's not exact in terms of matching the online's monitor but definitely gets us in the ballpark quite fast where we can start working as opposed to starting from scratch. When I'm on location, and don't have my full system, I'll send the timer a CC'd still for reference from laptop. Better than nothing.

Unfortunately, this method of doctoring stills for reference is not quite the same as CC'ing film neg. But you'll be surprised as to how close you can get to the film neg. But in terms of lattitidude esp in the highlights that's where they really diverge. You could say it works as a better than rough guide and gives me far more assurance in the case of best lights that I won't be getting uninformed calls from the heavies (clients, producers, etc).

Last DI I did, we actually used frame grabs from the Best Light SD xfer and doctored those for reference. Definitely sped things up. My only regret is I wish the SD xfer was of a better quality as I was somewhat limited in my CCing the grabs (noise/lattitude).

I'm sure there are better methods out there, but I come from the days of workprints and printing lights (miss those) and this is a God send.
 
thanks, tim, for all the info. i'll start playing around with my final cut filters of the same names as the list of terms you gave me to start getting an idea of how they effect a shot. that's a good why to know a little bit more of what to expect when I do get on the clock.

jones
 
A colorist is an artist more than a technician. Be cautious about micro managing an artist - the results can be unsatisfactory and expensive. Also, figure out a way to sit in on a session - not online. You will learn more from sitting in on one session than you will from tinkering with your final cut filters.
 
Agreed. But like any key personnel on a project like a DP, Production Designer, Editor, Talent, etc, they need to be directed. The problem is many directors don't quite understand the what a good colorist can achieve. I second the notion that you try to sit in on a session if you get the chance. I still find it useful to tinker with looks at home or find photo/film references to get a starting point. It's like rehearsal with your talent or storyboarding. You don't go in blind and unprepared. In fact, Kodak actively encourages this through their LUT's that can be applied to photoshop whereby you can emulate your stock from a digital still. It makes a great guide for best lights while in a production.

Be prepared for different colorists. They're not all push and play clones. The discounted indy rate night guy usually will not have the chops as the day rate colorist. Like true artists some will have definite opinions. Like working with talent or anyone with strong opinions; I've argued with colorists before; I've had them completely say I'm nuts and have another colorists working the same settings and thinking it's brilliant. What scares me are the colorists who do exactly as I say, never offering up an opinion, alternative or an enhancement. That's a technician. My favorite colorist, Joe Szutarsky at DuArt, always has an opinion, some good, some bad but backed with passion to do something special. Once we dial in the look and map it out over key scenes, then he works on the matching.

Film to tape is one of the most fascinating aspects of filmmaking. What you can pull from a negative is just mind boggling. I've pulled things 5-6 stops overexposed that I thought didn't exist or just change the tint in a small part of the frame and have it alter the impact of a shot completely. It's definitely an aspect of moviemaking that'll I'll miss when and if digital completely supplants film.
 
Tim Naylor said:
It's definitely an aspect of moviemaking that'll I'll miss when and if digital completely supplants film.
Click to expand...

Do the skills of film colorists translate in the digital colorist workflow? Are they able to make the transition? Or is it going to take a lot of re-education?

jones
 
1. Yes, because it is a job requiring a trained eye and artistic judgment.
2. Many, but not all by any means, because
3. It takes a LOT of re-education regarding the tools. They have a lot more power now, to either sweeten or destroy a shot, and compared to the days of the Hazeltine and punched paper tape the learning curve is beyond steep. They can even cc just the window, which we always assumed was impossible in post.

Don't get lazy shooting, though. Gets expensive in post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top